What Is Pragmatic And How To Use It
페이지 정보
작성자 Harry 댓글 0건 조회 6회 작성일 24-12-19 20:09본문
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor 프라그마틱 정품확인 in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For 프라그마틱 정품확인 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor 프라그마틱 정품확인 in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For 프라그마틱 정품확인 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.